LAUSR

BACKGROUND The aim was to evaluate the use of LMA Protector by comparison with tradition LMA for performing EBUS-TBNA. METHODS It was a retrospective observational unicenter study including 143 patients who under- went EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal staging of lung cancer. Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on whether a standard LMA (LMA standard Group) or LMA protector was used. Anaesthesiologist outcomes, diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA, and complications related to the pro- cedure were computed for each group and statistically compared. RESULTS LMA traditional group and LMA protector group counted 70 and 73 patients, respec- tively. LMA traditional group versus LMA protector group showed no significant difference on time of LMA insertion (120±25 vs 118±39 seconds; p=0.49), reposition rates (18% vs 16%; p=0.78); systolic pressure (140±55 vs 118±37; p=0.59); diastolic pressure (82±15 vs 90±26; p=0.39); heart rate (82±9.9 vs 83±20; p=0.49); SpO2 values (93±21 vs 92±14; p=0.63); diagnostic accuracy (91.3% vs 92%; p=0.95), and patients' complications as nausea (4% vs 3%; p=0.61); vomiting (3% vs 1%, p=0.96); gastric aspiration (7% vs 1%; p=0.08); and sore throat (7% vs 3%; p=0.22). Conversely, LMA traditional group vs. LMA protector group presented a longer procedural time (47±23 vs 38±17; p=0.02), higher number of passage to biopsy target lesion (4±0.5 vs 3.1±0.6; p=0.01); higher rate of balloon ultrasound rupture (11% vs 1%; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS EBUS-TBNA conducted with LMA protector is a useful strategy that reduced the procedural time and in theory ensured the comfort of patients. Our results should be confirmed by larger, prospective, randomized studies.